1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. EUROSLA Yearbook
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1568-1491
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9749
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Willingness to Communicate (WTC), the most immediate antecedent of actual communication behavior in an L2, is widely believed to facilitate the acquisition of the target language. Higher WTC is generally associated with higher L2 use (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei & Noels 1998), though it has not been empirically tested. This article reports on an attempt to fill this gap by investigating to what degree learners’ self-reported L2 WTC predicts actual L2 use in the classroom. A group of 372 Japanese university EFL learners majoring in science and human arts subjects participated in the study. Students’ oral performance data were collected three times during the group discussions in one academic semester. The number of words each student produced during each discussion was counted. The results of structural equation modelling analyses suggested that self-reported L2 WTC predicted actual L2 use in the classroom. Second, gender differences in L2 use in the language classroom has not been empirically explored in the quantitative studies, therefore, whether L2 WTC would predict observed L2 use equally among males and females, and whether males and females produce equal amount of L2 in the classroom will be explored. Implications of the research findings will be discussed.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/eurosla.16.04mun
2016-08-11
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/eurosla.16.04mun
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ajzen, I
    (1988) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2005) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. New York, NY: Open University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alemi, M. , Tajeddin, Z. & Mesbah, Z
    (2013) Willingness to Communicate in L2 English: Impact of Learner Variables. RALS, 4, 42–61. Retrieved fromrals.scu.ac.ir/pdf_10469_0e0018f944879f136f31c86f41036ed0.html
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Shehri, A.S
    (2009) Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self, imagination and visual style. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.164–171). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beatty, M.J. & McCroskey, J.C
    (2000) A few comments about communibiology and the nature/nurture question. Communication Education, 49(1), 25–28. doi: 10.1080/03634520009379189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379189 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentler, P.M
    (2006) EQS6 [Computer software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bleses, D. , Vach, W. , Slott, M. , Wehberg, S. , Thomsen, P. , Madsen, T.O. & Basboll, H
    (2008).The Danish Communicative Developmental Inventories: Validity and main developmental trends. Journal of child language, 35, 651–669.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowers, J.M. , Perez-Pouchoulen, M. , Edwards, N.S. and McCarthy, M.M
    (2013) Foxp2 mediates sex differences in ultrasonic vocalization by rat pups and directs order of maternal retrieval. Journal of Neuroscience, 33 (8), 3276–3283. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0425‑12.2013
     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0425-12.2013 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brannon, L
    (2015) Gender: Psychological Perspectives. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brizendine, L
    (2006) The Female Brain. New York: Broadway Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Burman, D.D. , Bitan, T. & Booth, J.R
    (2008) Sex differences in neural processing of language among children. Neuropsychologia, 46(5), 1349–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  12. Canale, M. & Swain, M
    (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics1, 1–47. doi: 10.1093/applin/1.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cao, Y. & Philp, J
    (2006) Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clément, R. & Kruidenier, B
    (1985) Aptitude, attitude, and motivation in second language proficiency: A test of Clément’s model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 21–37. doi: 10.1177/0261927X8500400102
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8500400102 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, N
    (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Csizér, K. & Kormos, J
    (2009) Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behavior: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.98–119). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Denies, K. , Yashima, T. & Janssen, R
    (2015) Classroom Versus Societal Willingness to Communicate: Investigating French as a Second Language in Flanders. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 718–739. doi: 10.1111/modl.12276
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12276 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dörnyei, Z
    (1990) Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, 40, 46–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00954.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00954.x [Google Scholar]
  19. (2005) The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dörnyei, Z. & Kormos, J
    (2000) The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300. doi: 10.1177/136216880000400305
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400305 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fiore, D.J
    (2011) School-community Relations (3rd ed.). Larchmon, NY: Eye on Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fisher, S.E. & Scharff, C
    (2009) FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language. Trends in Genetics25, 166 –177. CrossRef Medline doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2009.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Forsyth, D.R
    (2010) Group Dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E
    (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gardner, R.C
    (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, England: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Good, T.L. , Sikes, J.N. & Brophy, J.E
    (1973) Effects of teacher sex and student sex on classroom interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology65, 74–87. doi: 10.1037/h0034816
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034816 [Google Scholar]
  27. Good, T.L. , Cooper, H.M. & Blakey, S.L
    (1980) Classroom interaction as a function of teacher expectations, student sex, and time of year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 378–385. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.72.3.378
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.3.378 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hashimoto, Y
    (2002) Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese context. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hsu, C.F
    (2007) A cross-cultural comparison of communication orientations between Americans and Taiwanese. Communication Quarterly55(3). 359–374. doi: 10.1080/01463370701497831
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370701497831 [Google Scholar]
  30. Huttenlocher, J.H.W. , Bryk, A. , Seltzer, M. & Lyons, T
    (1991) Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248. doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.27.2.236
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.236 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyde, J.S. & Linn, M.C
    (1988) Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin104, 53–69. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.104.1.53
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hymes, D
    (1972) On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes , (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jing, L
    (2013) Research on English majors’ willingness to communicate inside classroom. Sino-US English Teaching, 10(8), 615–620. Retrieved fromdavidpublishing.com/show.html?13783
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kang, S
    (2005) Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kimura, D
    (2000) Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book/MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, Lynne
    (2008) Research Methodology on Language Development from a Complex Systems Perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00714.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Leaper, C. & Ayres, M.M
    (2007) A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328–363. doi: 10.1177/1088868307302221
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307302221 [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, S. , Weidenfeld, J. & Morrisey, E.E
    (2004) Transcriptional and DNA binding activity of the Foxp1/2/4 family is modulated by heterotypic and homotypic protein interactions. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 24, 809–822 doi: 10.1128/MCB.24.2.809‑822.2004
     https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.24.2.809-822.2004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lin, Y & Rancer, A.S
    (2003) Sex differences in intercultural communication apprehension, ethnocentrism, and intercultural willingness to communicate. Psychological Reports, 92, 195–200. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.195
     https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.195 [Google Scholar]
  40. Linacre, J.M
    (2009) Winsteps. (Version 3.68) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. MacIntyre, P.D
    (1994) Variables underlying Willingness to Communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135–142. doi: 10.1080/08824099409359951
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359951 [Google Scholar]
  42. MacIntyre, P.D. , Baker, S.C. , Clément, R. & Conrod, S
    (2001) Willingness to communicate, social support, and language learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388. doi: 10.1017/S0272263101003035
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101003035 [Google Scholar]
  43. MacIntyre, P.D. , Baker, S.C. , Clément, R. & Donovan, L.A
    (2003) Talking in order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 589–607. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.59.4.589
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.4.589 [Google Scholar]
  44. MacIntyre, P.D. & Charos, C
    (1996) Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 3–26. doi: 10.1177/0261927X960151001
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960151001 [Google Scholar]
  45. MacIntyre, P.D. , Clément, R. , Dörnyei, Z. & Noels, K.A
    (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb05543.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x [Google Scholar]
  46. MacIntyre, P.D. & Donovan, L.A
    (2004) Age and sex differences in willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, and self-perceived competence. Communication Research Reports, 21, 420–427. doi: 10.1080/08824090409360006
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090409360006 [Google Scholar]
  47. MacIntyre, P.D. & Legatto, J.J
    (2010) A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq037
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq037 [Google Scholar]
  48. Maccoby, E
    (1966) The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. McCroskey, J.C. & Baer, J.E
    (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement.Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication association , Denver, Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. McCroskey, J.C. & Richmond, V.P
    (1987) Willingness to communicate and interpersonal communication. In J.C. McCroskey & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1991) Quiet children and the classroom teacher. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Mehl, R.M. , Vazire, S. , Ramírez-Esparza, N. , Slatcher, R.B. & Pennebaker, J.W
    (2007) Are women really more talkative than men?Journal of Science, 317(5834), 82–82. doi: 10.1126/science.1139940
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139940 [Google Scholar]
  53. Munezane, Y
    (2010, September). The power of will to pass the Rubicon: A way to foster WTC. Paper presented at Doctoral Workshop, EUROSLA Conference 20, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2013) Attitudes, affect and ideal L2 self as predictors of willingness to communicate. EUROSLA Yearbook13, 176–198. doi: 10.1075/eurosla.13.09mun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.13.09mun [Google Scholar]
  55. (2014) A Structural Equation Model and Intervention Study of Individual Differences, Willingness to Communicate and L2 Use in an EFL Classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, U.S.A.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. . (March 2015a) Gender differences in an EFL classroom: Willingness to communicate, ideal L2 self, and effects of goal-setting. Paper presented at the AAAL Annual Conference , Toronto, Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (2015b) Enhancing willingness to communicate: Relative effects of visualization and goal-setting. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 175–191. doi: 10.1111/modl.12193
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12193 [Google Scholar]
  58. Onnela, J. , Waber, B.N. , Pentland, A. , Schnorf, S. & Lazer, D
    (2014) Using sociometers to quantify social interaction patters. Scientific Reports, 4, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/srep06278
     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06278 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ortega, L
    (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Currents in Language Learning, 63, 1–24, Supplement 1. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00735.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Pawlak, M. & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A
    (2015) Investigating the dynamic nature of L2 willingness to communicate. System, 50, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Peng, J. & Woodrow, L
    (2010) Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834–876. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00576.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00576.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Penke, L. & Deary, I.J
    (2010) Some guidelines for structural equation modeling in cognitive neuroscience: The case of Charlton, et al.’s study on white matter integrity and cognitive ageing. Neurobiology of Aging, 31, 1656–1660 doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.10.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  63. Pinker, S
    (1994) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Perennial.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Rasch, G
    (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Richmond, V.P. & Roach, K.D
    (1992) Willingness to Communicate and Employee Success in US. Organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20 (1), 95–115. doi: 10.1080/00909889209365321
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889209365321 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ryan, S
    (2009) Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal l2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.120–143). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Sick, J.R. & Nagasaka, J.P
    (2000) A test of your willingness to communicate in English. Unpublished questionnaire.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Taguchi, T. , Magid, M. & Papi, M
    (2009) The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei , & E. Ushioda , (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.66–97). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Whiteley, S
    (1997) Using visualization for Learning. RetrievedApril, 5, 2010fromwww.trans4mind.com/counterpoint/whiteley.shtml.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Wood, J.T
    (2007) Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Yano, Y
    (2003) Communicative competence and English as an international language. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12, 75–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Yashima, T
    (2002) Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 56–66. doi: 10.1111/1540‑4781.00136
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136 [Google Scholar]
  73. Yashima, T. , Zenuk-Nishide, L. & Shimizu, K
    (2004) The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00250.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/eurosla.16.04mun
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error